But have you heard about extreme not-in-my-backyard-ists? You probably haven’t because this isn’t a real phenomenon. At least not yet. But we’re here to tell you that there are some pretty good examples out there of folks who seem to be willing to go to any extreme to stop a renewable energy project from coming about.

With that in mind and in the interest of educating developers about what some people might say about their projects, here are a few examples. Feel free to list your own NIMBY cases in comment section below.

Solar is So Ugly

Take the example of Jim and Frances Babb who spent years battling their local zoning board in a West St. Louis county in Missouri.

The couple simply wanted to install solar panels on their Victorian home and even though their homeowners association gave them a quick approval to do so, once they filled for a permit the city itself tried to pass an ordinance banning solar on the front or sides of a roof, which would have made their project impossible. The small solar industry in the town protested and the ordinance that eventually passed allowed ground mounts and all roof mounts as long as they were parallel to the plane of the roof as long as the homeowner went through planning and zoning and achieved a majority vote of the board of alderman. The Babb's made it through the P&Z process and received approval, however the alderman voted 6-0 to deny them without offering them a reason. So they were forced to file a lawsuit.

A neighbor who was in opposition to the Babbs request said she thought the panels would look “trashy.” Other neighbors felt that the ugly panels would lower their own home values.

Even though the Babb’s ultimately prevailed, it took multiple hearings and a lawsuit and considerable added expense before the panels were finally installed. You can watch a clip from one of the hearings in the video at this link.

The saga is still not over, either. Even though the courts allowed the Babb's to install the panels now the city is up in arms about the permits that it was ordered to issue and never did, according to Frances Babb. Even though the system has been running for 17 months, the city wants the Babbs to apply for a new permit and allow their system to be inspected. The Babb's have countered with their own motion to hold the city in contempt of court and are seeking damages and lawyer's fees.

Wind Turbines Ruin Views

On a much larger scale of extreme nimbyism, look no further than Cape Wind, a proposed offshore wind farm near Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The project has been in the works for more than 10 years and has seen lawsuit after lawsuit be brought against it. The bottom line and the suspected reason for all of this opposition is that residents of the Cape, among whom are the very famous Kennedy’s, worry that the sight of 130 turbines about 5 miles out to sea will destroy their view of the ocean.

In a press release announcing that Cape Wind has again prevailed in its legal battles, the company noted that “Judge Walton rejected a long list of legal claims project opponents had raised, including arguments over navigational safety, alternative locations, alternative technologies, historic preservation, Native American artifacts, sea turtles, and the adequacy of the project’s environmental impact statement and biological opinions.”

It still remains to be seen if the wind farm will be built and its opponents have vowed to file lawsuit after lawsuit in hopes that the developer will eventually give up.

Even Horses Hate Wind Farms

While most of the Nimby claims come from humans, keep in mind that horses, too, have serious problems with wind farms. According to a story in The Irish Times last month, the bloodstock industry, that is the industry that breeds thoroughbred horses, is worried that Ireland is too lenient on where wind turbines can be sited and is requesting that changes be made to the wind energy development guidelines.

According to the article, a group of four horse organizations — the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association, the Irish Jockeys’ Association, the Irish Racehorse Trainers’ Association and the Association of Irish Racehorse Owners — had filed a submission stating that thoroughbreds have “a highly-evolved flight response and were particularly sensitive to perceived visual or auditory threats.”

The submission also claimed that the “safety of the horses, and their riders and handlers could be in danger because of a turbine being located directly within their range of vision or hearing.”

These are just a few examples in an ocean of complaints about renewable energy projects. List your favorite (or most aggravating) in the comments section below.

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com
or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for
accuracy, spelling or grammar.

13 Comments

NIMBY, specifically for the renewables, is really a shame. Not only do the reasons behind these claims have very little validity when it comes to the real issue of developing alternative energy, but it also distracts from the real issues facing renewable energy. There are barriers to development of large scale renewable energy, and we should have open discussions about them in an effort find solutions and to clarify confusion that many people have regarding technologies.

i will probably use this same comment in at least one other article because i think it is relevant to both. The NIMBYs that make me crazy are the ones that don't want power lines ruining their esthetics. i have an answer for that: underground DC transmission lines from the solar generators in the desert or wind farms to the population centers. i know it costs a bit more, but they won't get knocked out by an extreme weather occurrence, and they can't be seen, so it is a fair compromise.

I would not go that far to say that wind is not a contribution to green energy. Technology always improve. The following idea, for example, I haven't explored yet, but the thought crossed my mind already;

Wind farms have lots of space between them. They utilize wind energy. What is wind energy? It is a difference in pressure between two locations. Warm air is less dense than cold air, thus would air flow towards the hot air and upward at the location of the hotter air.

Now, during daytime, what contribution would concentrated solar, heating the air behind a wind turbine have on its performance? Then again, wind turbines are towers, so what about having each tower a CSP tower? Combine these two ideas to wind farms and what could we gain from the same area? The CSP obviously not operating low efficiency steam turbines where water is required, but high efficiency piston engines where the heat energy is recycled.

I'm amazed how people are stubborn to think to supposed annoying side effects to animals, instead to think a very little further to the human needs for renewable energy sources! They all regards to their short-sighted interests and wallet and not to the right interests to the community they are part of!
The promoter, which let our house of 3 apartments be build, order natural gas, water and flat heating to be installed, because this was the cheapest solution he could sell at the highest price to put the money in his pocket! Now with Poutine going to close the russian gas supply to European nations...!
When, as a scientist, I studied the possibilities to build PV panels to our near perfectly oriented flat roof, proposing to the 2 others co-owners a very interesting and rentable investment in PV installation, bringing us each back money and energy savings, they prefered not investing and staying with nuclear power electricity, even in hearing the Fukushima disaster!
Earlier, about 30 years ago, I applied for a small sun-heating panels installation for my new own house, with the roof thought by myself to be south oriented, the urbanist office blocked the project for obscur, never really said reasons! I had a victory in installing near-geothermal house heating by a heat pump, in the beginning of this technology!
As having lived in the US for 2 years as a student, I thought it was only in Europe, and particularly in Switzerland, that the people and authorities were so sadly minded!
Sorry, I was wrong!!

Everyone possesses a certain amount of NIMBYism, and I'm betting there are a few things that could happen next door to the writer of this article that might set her off on a little griping of her own. NIMBYism is usually just a result of caring about what happens around you and the place you live.

In some cases, it does seem a little ridiculous; but just because someone else's concern about THEIR own interests is disagreeable to YOU doesn't make them wrong. One of the problems with large renewable energy projects, especially large scale wind power, is that they DO have significant impacts in many of the places where they're proposed. Yet, project supporters often can't seem to demonstrate that the fairly meager energy or environmental benefits actually justify the negative impacts.

I suspect that if a large wind project's energy and environmental benefits were more impressive, and demonstrated, acceptance would be easier to come by in sensitive locations.

ANONYMOUS
March 20, 2014

The initial objections to Cape Wind were for esthetic reasons, but some of us realized that in the absence of utility scale energy storage, Cape Wind and wind energy in general was not a power source and when connected to the grid, fossil fuel plants will have to ramp and cycle excessively to provide the added firming capacity to maintain stability. Studies now show that the increased firming capacity to balance wind energy consumes about as much fuel as wind proponents claim to save. We have come to understand the following:

• They are not environmentally friendly.
• They do not reduce greenhouse gases.
• In addition to being very expensive, they are an add-on to our system for providing eclectic power .
• They are a net job loser.
• The annoyance and ill effects they cause is for nothing in return.
• Large numbers of birds and bats are dying for nothing.
• They cannot and will not replace coal.
• Even if they do, the coal they replace will go to China to create worse world pollution.
• You cannot trade the health of wind turbine abutters for those affected by coal.
• The high cost will not decrease in time (Cape Wind’s initial cost estimate was 500 million. Now, it’s 2.5 billion)
• The money wasted on wind can better be spent researching for real alternatives.

Tell our political leaders and leaders of environmental groups to STOP.

The wrong variation of solar or any other RE will draw attention, some of it negative. There is no shortage of the wrong variation, indeed the wrong variation seems to be pushed the most aggressively. Putting the right variation in the right application will likely be greeted with a smile if not with applause.

There is a great deal of ugly big box buildings around. Anything solar (frequently PV) tends to improve things. Imagine putting multiple benefit solar on all that square mileage, instead of tearing up green fields, where nature is already doing a better job.

Resistance with merit where serious issues like environmental impact is concerned, one can still understand, but the example of the Babbs points at ignorance. The general public should be better informed about the condition of our planet's health. Everyone know about the term "global warming," but do not really understand what it entails. Most people think that we can't do anything about it. The media should adopt a policy of continuous focus on the issue and formulate it into an awareness program, educating the public on the topic in a language they understand.

Bill,
We were pro Hoosac Wind, and that was based on what Iberdrola the wind developer told us. Unfortunately they weren't telling the truth. Since then we have leaned the facts, the habitat on the Ridge destroyed with thousands of trees gone and the swamps and wetlands gone by blasting and filled in. The watershed has been changed and the streams which were once pristine tainted and now flash flood. If the environmental destruction wasn't enough including the wildlife being displaced the turbines can be very noisy and keep the neighbors up. One family even left their home as it was so bad and can't sell it as no one want's to live there. After the $94,000,000 of tax incentives to Iberdrola, very little electricity makes it way to the grid in relation to the investment. We would prefer to see the tax money go for local PV systems where it will actually lower demand to the grid and not wreck the local mountains and reduce property values and turn the rural quiet neighborhood into a noisy industrial place.

Cape Wind actually didn't prevail in all aspects of the law suit and the The court has validated that federal agencies have taken unacceptable shortcuts in their review of Cape Wind."

The court ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violated the Endangered Species Act in their reviews of the massive industrial project that has struggled to get off the ground for the last 13 years. The court remanded the case to FWS to independently evaluate a shutdown of turbines during migratory bird season. FWS has acknowledged this as the most effective measure to reduce bird mortality; however, Cape Wind has resisted the measure as one that would destroy the economic feasibility of its proposed project.

The court also ruled that NMFS can no longer avoid fully evaluating impacts to right whales and must formulate and issue an incidental take statement because of the documented presence of this highly endangered species in the area and the potential for Cape Wind to cause harm. In recent years, rare right whales have repeatedly been seen in the area.

Hi: Just a general comment. People tend to oppose what is different. This applies to "things" of a physical nature in a visible geographic area, or peoples behavior in a group. It doesn't matter whether it is a difference in a plus direction or a minus. The fact that it is just different creates a negative feeling. In order to avoid this, a positive introduction must happen before the proposed change and must be sold and verified as favored. Then when the change comes, resistance if any is minimal.